1. Students should receive explicit and systematic instruction to learn to read and write.
"One of the greatest tools available to us in this pursuit [teaching] is explicit instruction—instruction that is systematic, direct, engaging, and success oriented. The effectiveness of explicit instruction has been validated again and again in research involving both general education and special education." (Archer & Hughes, 2011)
This may seem obvious to the casual observer of literacy instruction. Teachers should teach, right? Unfortunately, many well-regarded reading programs and experts exhort teachers to shy away from teacher-directed instruction. They say that reading and writing should be "caught, not taught." What happens, then, for those students who don't catch on to the basics of literacy?
This may seem obvious to the casual observer of literacy instruction. Teachers should teach, right? Unfortunately, many well-regarded reading programs and experts exhort teachers to shy away from teacher-directed instruction. They say that reading and writing should be "caught, not taught." What happens, then, for those students who don't catch on to the basics of literacy?
2. Students in preK-2* especially need explicit and systematic instruction in phonics and phonological awareness.
We have known for quite some time (see Moats, 1998 for more) that all students benefit from explicit and systematic instruction in phonics. Most people of my generation (X) learned phonics, but my millennial friends often cannot tell me the most common sounds that letters make. It's not their fault! (Don't millennials get blamed for enough, anyway?) In the 80's and 90's, influential and well-paid literacy leaders began advocating methods of teaching reading in which phonics was incidental (if included at all). Luckily, more educators are now pushing back against the idea that kids can learn to read simply by reading interesting books.
*and striving readers in other grades
3. Background knowledge is a key element of reading comprehension, and therefore must be intentionally built.
I am that nerd who has a favorite reading study, and it's Recht and Leslie's 1988 genius article "Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory of text." I know, I know ... it sounds scintillating.
Because it is.
Recht and Leslie found that kids with knowledge of the topic of a text can comprehend the text regardless of their status as a struggling reader. Kids who were considered good readers, but didn't have knowledge of the topic -- baseball, in the study -- found comprehension challenging.
Findings such as these are both hopeful and daunting. Hopeful, because students with academic background knowledge can tackle more challenging texts than we previously thought. Daunting, because we spend a huge amount of our school day teaching "comprehension skills," while science and social studies are often neglected. In order to help all kids comprehend, we must intentionally build knowledge of the world around them, while also accessing students' own cultural literacies.
Because it is.
Recht and Leslie found that kids with knowledge of the topic of a text can comprehend the text regardless of their status as a struggling reader. Kids who were considered good readers, but didn't have knowledge of the topic -- baseball, in the study -- found comprehension challenging.
Findings such as these are both hopeful and daunting. Hopeful, because students with academic background knowledge can tackle more challenging texts than we previously thought. Daunting, because we spend a huge amount of our school day teaching "comprehension skills," while science and social studies are often neglected. In order to help all kids comprehend, we must intentionally build knowledge of the world around them, while also accessing students' own cultural literacies.
4. All students, regardless of reading ability, deserve teacher-supported access to on-grade-level texts.
If you are a parent, you've likely boasted about your child's reading level, or been concerned that your child hasn't reached the level someone told you they should. To assess growth, such levels can be helpful. For a long while, however, such levels have been used in a more insidious way: to determine which books students should be reading.
The Common Core State Standards, educational justice, and research all demand that we not limit students to texts they can already read. Wilcox & Eldredge (2000) found that students learned more when they read above their reading levels, but in a scaffolded manner. If we want our students to grow, we have to set worthy challenges before them.
The Common Core State Standards, educational justice, and research all demand that we not limit students to texts they can already read. Wilcox & Eldredge (2000) found that students learned more when they read above their reading levels, but in a scaffolded manner. If we want our students to grow, we have to set worthy challenges before them.
5. Culturally-responsive teachers center their students while also promoting academic success.
I am a big believer in culturally-responsive pedagogy. However some teachers use the idea as an excuse for why their students can't achieve at high levels. I will never be one of those teachers. In her seminal paper on culturally-responsive teaching, Gloria Ladson-Billings (1995) identified academic success as a key component of cultural relevance. Yes, I believe that our capitalist system props up a White, cishet patriarchy at the expense of those who don't fit into that world. However, we can't wait for white supremacy to end to teach kids to read.
